64-Bit Rugrat Virus Emerges

weekendwarrior1980 writes "The first computer virus to target 64-bit Windows systems has been detected by security authorities. Dubbed "W64.Rugrat.3344," the virus is a fairly benign, proof-of-concept infection agent, according to a report issued on the Symantec Web site. This threat does not infect 32-bit systems and will not run on 32-bit Windows platforms. It is a direct-action infector, typically exiting memory after execution, and is written in IA64 (Intel Architecture) assembly code." Update: 05/29 19:26 GMT by T : Yes, this is the same "non-event" virus already mentioned.

Comments

People please!

[chrisgeleven]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do a search on Slashdot for previous articles before posting and/or approving articles!

Going to the Search page, typing "Rugrat", and clicking the "Search" button already brings up a story about the first 64-bit Windows virus from Thursday, May 27th, 2004.

Unbelievable. Took me 2 seconds to do the search and would save a dupe.

Slashdot's habit of duplicating stories is getting pretty rediculous.

Hypocrites!!

[KarmaPolice]

If you are going to complain about dupes, why not take a look at the current comments before creating another "Yep, it's a dupe"-comment.

Dupes are bad, but dupe comments about dupes...why, that's just silly!!

Stop the argument before it starts...

[rice_burners_suck]

And for those of you who think that once Linux takes over the world, the new viruses will target Linux, I think you are not taking the following factors into consideration:

1. Windows is an inherent security risk because nobody can see the source code and identify security problems. This might be touted as an advantage, because in the eyes of IT CIOs who don't know anything about computers, it is supposed to prevent security problems from becoming known. However, this does not take into consideration the 1337 h4x0rz who have a deep knowledge of computers, networks, and programming, and who have the time to find the bugs without seeing the source code. Thus, bugs that would be found and fixed quickly through access to the source code are not found and fixed until it's too late. In Linux, these bugs are usually fixed in the same day as they are found.
2. Many viruses are created to target Windows because many people hate Windows, Microsoft, and the political, social, and economic ideas they represent. These same individuals would not feel the same animosity towards Linux, because it does not represent the enrichment of a single entity at the expense of the entire world.
3. Windows contains a tremendous amount of code and features that not every business or individual needs. These customers cannot remove that code, and therefore, there are that many more potential bugs and vulnerabilities present in their installations that would not otherwise be there. Linux can be modified, and usually is, so that each system is different. Unneeded features are not installed.
4. All installations of Windows are effectively identical because, as I just said, you cannot modify anything. This means that all the zillions of people who are running the same version of Windows are vulnerable to the same bugs and viruses. Which means that a virus created for any version of Windows has a much larger "market" than one created for Linux, in which there are almost as many variations as there are installations.

Re:What's interesting...

[Chester K]

We have here a virus for IA64, a system that's out there in a minimal amount of machines, all high-end (presumably well-protected) servers. Now one of the standard explanations for the lack of viruses for Linux is that Linux is not as widespread. It is, however, much more widespread than IA64. Thus the amount of Linuxen out there is certainly not the only reason we're not seeing virues for Linux. Who knows, maybe Linux *is* actually more secure than Windows?

You act as if there've never been any worms or viruses for Linux...